Teresa Walsh

Following a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding concerning pharmaceutical product liability, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs after obtaining certification against one defendant but not the other.

The court considered Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretionary principles governing costs in class proceedings.

While the defendants argued the plaintiff’s claim should be substantially reduced due to partial success and limited certification of common issues, the court rejected most of these arguments.

However, because certification was not granted against one defendant, the court reduced the plaintiff’s claimed costs by approximately 20 percent.

Costs of $300,000 all-inclusive were awarded payable forthwith.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed national class action alleging that a prescription smoking‑cessation drug caused neuropsychiatric adverse events and that the manufacturer breached its duty to warn consumers and physicians.

The court considered the certification criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, including whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The court held that there was some basis in fact for a duty to warn claim against the Canadian manufacturer based on expert and anecdotal evidence of adverse psychiatric events.

The proposed class definition and common issues were amended to focus on specific neuropsychiatric symptoms and the adequacy of product monograph warnings between 2007 and 2010.

The proceeding was certified against the Canadian manufacturer but not against the U.S. parent company, whose involvement lacked a factual basis.

In a proposed pharmaceutical products liability class action concerning alleged neuropsychiatric side effects of the smoking cessation drug Champix, the defendants brought a refusals motion seeking further production of medical and related records from proposed representative plaintiffs during cross‑examinations conducted for a certification motion.

The defendants argued the additional records were necessary to challenge whether there was some basis in fact for the proposed common issues and certification criteria.

The court accepted that the requested information had some relevance but held that the scope of cross‑examination on a certification motion is narrower than discovery and must comply with proportionality principles.

Given that the plaintiffs had already produced medical records and answered extensive questions, compelling further production would improperly extend the inquiry into the merits of the case and impose a disproportionate burden.

The motion to compel further answers and productions was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of her negligence claim.

The trial judge found that the appellant failed to prove factual causation, concluding that the probable cause of the accident was an unsafe activity undertaken by the appellant on a stool, rather than the stool's wobbly steps.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding on causation was open to her on the evidence and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.

The appellant appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that determined complex legal questions regarding contribution and indemnity under section 1 of the Negligence Act in the context of a contractual limitation of liability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the motions judge's order, finding that the novel and complex legal issues required a full factual record and should not have been determined before trial.

The appellant appealed an order determining two questions of law on a Rule 21 motion before trial.

The underlying action involved a claim for $10,000,000 in damages for a failed roof at Terminal 3 of Pearson International Airport.

The respondents sought to determine whether a $250,000 limitation of liability clause in the architect's contract affected their claims for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the legal issues were novel, complex, and required a full factual record, making them inappropriate for determination on a Rule 21 motion.